ethylene — label CAS 74-85-1

ethylene

0,99 €

Etylen, CAS 74-85-1

🔒 Demo mode — this item is not for sale.

Legal substance. dhscientific.com is a demonstration of the MOL-GOD platform — we sell nothing and no orders are fulfilled. Banned substances are blocked here automatically from the regulatory canon (compare e.g. Heptachlor).

Audit of your SDS — free → · Contact

MolGod_SDSCARD_1
REACH 2020/878
v3 · 21.07.2026
Kategoria:
🧬 3D Molecule Visualizer
Loading molecule...
3D model Ethylene, CAS 74-85-1, molecular formula C2H4, molar mass 28.05 g/mol

Data transcribed from regulatory registers and technical literature, with the source and edition stated. It does not replace the supplier's safety data sheet. Fields without a recorded source are marked as such.

Chemical Overview: EthyleneMolGod_OVERVIEW_1
Molecular formulaC2H4[1]
Molecular weight28.05 g/mol[1]
Melting point-169.11 °C[1][2]
Boiling point-103.72 °C[1][2]
LogP (lipophilicity)1.2[1]
IUPAC nameethene[1]
SMILESC=C[1]
InChIKeyVGGSQFUCUMXWEO-UHFFFAOYSA-N[1]

Synonyms: ETHYLENE · Ethene · Acetene · Elayl · Olefiant gas

Data sources: PubChem (NLM/NIH)
Last updated: 2026-08-07

📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (2 sources)
  1. PubChem. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH/NLM), chemical compound database. ↗ dotyczy: Molecular formula · Molecular weight · Melting point · Boiling point · LogP (lipophilicity) · IUPAC name · SMILES · InChIKey
  2. DECHEMA, PTB, and BAM. CHEMSAFE - Database of Evaluated Safety Characteristics for the Avoidance of Explosions. Frankfurt am Main: DECHEMA e.V.; Braunschweig/Berlin: Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt and Bundesanstalt fur Materialforschung und -prufung. ↗ dotyczy: Melting point · Boiling point
📊 Physicochemical properties

Quick Reference

Formula: C2H4
MW: 28.05 g/mol
CAS: 74-85-1
Appearance: Colorless gas
Odour: Sweet
🔬 Advanced Properties

Chemical Identifiers

SMILES: C=C

Last updated: 2026-07-11

Regulatory status of the substance
This substance is subject to regulatory requirements: hazardous waste management (BDO register). Details in the \"Regulatory Status (REACH/ECHA/CLP)\" section and on the SDS. Regulatory information — does not restrict purchase in this store.
🧮 Stoichiometry CalculatorMolGod_STOICH_1
🔍 External identifiersMolGod_EXTID_1
13 of 16 ID systems81%
DatabaseIdentifierActions
CAS Registry Number74-85-1Open →
PubChem CID6325[1]Open →
InChIKeyVGGSQFUCUMXWEO-UHFFFAOYSA-N[1]Open →
InChIInChI=1S/C2H4/c1-2/h1-2H2[1]
SMILESC=C[1]
EC Number200-815-3[2]Open →
ChEMBLCHEMBL117822[3]Open →
KEGG CompoundC06547Open →
HMDBHMDB0029594Open →
ChemSpider6085[4]Open →
MeSH UID (NLM)C036216Open →
UNII (FDA)91GW059KN7Open →
WikiData QIDQ151313Open →

Sources: PubChem (NIH), Wikidata SPARQL, KEGG, ChEMBL (EBI), CompTox CTX (EPA).

📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (4 sources)
  1. PubChem. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH/NLM), chemical compound database. ↗ dotyczy: PubChem CID · InChIKey · InChI · SMILES
  2. ECHA. EC Inventory — EINECS, ELINCS, NLP and List Numbers assigned under REACH. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency. ↗ dotyczy: EC Number
  3. ChEMBL. European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), bioactivity database. ↗ dotyczy: ChEMBL
  4. ChemSpider. Royal Society of Chemistry, chemical structure database. ↗ dotyczy: ChemSpider
📡 Spectroscopy — CAS 74-85-1MolGod_SPECHUB_MAIN
📊 Spectra (NMR, IR, MS, UV-Vis) (1)

Available spectrum types: IR

IR spectrum (KBr, 4000-400 cm⁻¹)

446 data points · Source: NIST WebBook · NIST ↗ · 📥 JCAMP-DX
🎓 Spectrum interpretation guide (for students)
How to read an IR spectrum
  • 3200-3600 cm⁻¹ — O-H stretch (broad peak = hydrogen bonding)
  • 2850-3000 cm⁻¹ — C-H stretch (sp³)
  • 1650-1750 cm⁻¹ — C=O stretch (ketones, aldehydes, esters)
  • 1400-1600 cm⁻¹ — aromatic ring vibrations
  • 1000-1300 cm⁻¹ — C-O stretch (ethers, alcohols)
  • No absorption = no functional group → compare with a reference

Sources: LibreTexts ↗, Silverstein (Spectrometric ID) ↗

📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (7 sources)
  1. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2024. "NIST Chemistry WebBook, SRD 69." Gaithersburg, MD: NIST. Accessed 2025-01-01. ↗
  2. Spectral Database for Organic Structure Determination (SDBS). 2024. National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan. Accessed 2025-01-01. ↗
  3. Ulrich, Eldon L., Hideo Akutsu, John F. Doreleijers, Yoko Harano, Yannis E. Ioannidis, Jundong Lin, Miron Livny, et al. 2008. "BioMagResBank." Nucleic Acids Research 36 (D1): D402–D408. [DOI ↗]
  4. Horai, Hisayuki, Masanori Arita, Shigehiko Kanaya, Yoshito Nihei, Tasuku Ikeda, Kazuhiro Suwa, Yuya Ojima, et al. 2010. "MassBank: A Public Repository for Sharing Mass Spectral Data for Life Sciences." Journal of Mass Spectrometry 45 (7): 703–714. [DOI ↗]
  5. Linstrom, P.J., and W.G. Mallard, eds. 2024. NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. ↗
  6. McDonald, M. Shane, Mike McAvoy, and Ajit Bhalerao. 1988. "JCAMP-DX: A Standard Form for Exchange of Infrared Spectra in Computer Readable Form." Applied Spectroscopy 42 (1): 151–162. [DOI ↗]
  7. PubChem. 2024. "PubChem Compound Database." National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Accessed 2025-01-01. ↗
📐 Physical & Chemical Properties (DB) 6 fields MolGod Score: No source
Property Value Unit Conditions Source
Melting point -169.11 [1][2] °C 1 atm No primary source
Boiling point -103.72 [1][2] °C No primary source
Water solubility 0.131 [3] g/L 25°C No primary source
Flash point -100 [2] °C closed cup No primary source
Autoignition temperature 450 [2] °C in air No primary source
logP (octanol/water) 1.2 [2][4] — No primary source
📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (4 sources)
  1. DECHEMA, PTB, and BAM. CHEMSAFE - Database of Evaluated Safety Characteristics for the Avoidance of Explosions. Frankfurt am Main: DECHEMA e.V.; Braunschweig/Berlin: Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt and Bundesanstalt fur Materialforschung und -prufung. ↗ dotyczy: Melting point · Boiling point
  2. PubChem. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH/NLM), chemical compound database. ↗ dotyczy: Melting point · Boiling point · Flash point · Autoignition temperature · logP (octanol/water)
  3. Sorbe, G. Sicherheitstechnische Kenndaten chemischer Stoffe. Loose-leaf collection. Landsberg/Lech: ecomed. dotyczy: Water solubility
  4. Sangster, J. "Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients of Simple Organic Compounds." Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 18, no. 3 (1989): 1111-1229. ↗ dotyczy: logP (octanol/water)

Physicochemical values are derived from the independent, peer-reviewed sources listed above.

🔄 Concentration unit converter LIVE MolGod_UNITCONV_1

Enter the Ethylene concentration in any unit — the rest will be calculated automatically.

MW: 28.05 g/mol · IUPAC Gold Book ↗

⚗️ Conversion formulas + citations (per formula)
ConversionFormulaAccuracySource
% (w/v) ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = (% × 10) / MW±0.5% rel. when density ≈ 1.0 g/mLIUPAC (2019)
millimolar ↔ molarc (mol/L) = mM × 10⁻³ExactCohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007)
molarity (mol/L)c = n/V = (m/MW)/V±0.1% (depends on MW precision)IUPAC (2019)
parts per million (mg/L) ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = ppm / (1000 × MW); equivalently ppm = mg/L for dilute aqueous±1% (density-independent for dilute solutions)IUPAC (2019)
mg/mL ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = (mg/mL × 1000) / MW / 1000 = mg/mL / MW × 1±0.2%Cohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007)
g/L ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = (g/L) / MW±0.1% (depends on MW precision)Cohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007)
mmol/L ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = mmol/L × 10⁻³ExactCohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007)
Celsius ↔ KelvinT(K) = t(°C) + 273.15±0.01 K (ITS-90 scale)BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) (2019)
Celsius ↔ FahrenheitT(°F) = T(°C) × 9/5 + 32±0.1 °FThompson A, Taylor BN (2008)
density-corrected % ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = (%w/w × ρ × 10) / MW, ρ in g/mL±0.1% when ρ known to 3 decimalsCohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007)
📚 Bibliography (8 authoritative sources)
  1. Thompson A, Taylor BN (2008). Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI). NIST Special Publication 811 · DOI: 10.6028/NIST.SP.811-2008
    → Primary SI standard for US scientific usage
  2. Cohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007). Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry — The IUPAC Green Book. RSC Publishing, 3rd ed. · DOI: 10.1039/9781847557889 · ISBN: 978-0-85404-433-7
    → Canonical IUPAC guide for chemistry quantities/units
  3. BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) (2019). The International System of Units (SI), 9th edition. BIPM · ↗
    → International SI definitions (incl. redefined kilogram 2019)
  4. ISO/IEC (2022). Quantities and units — Part 1: General. International Organization for Standardization — ISO 80000-1:2022 · ↗
    → General rules for physical quantities and units
  5. ISO/IEC (2019). Quantities and units — Part 9: Physical chemistry and molecular physics. International Organization for Standardization — ISO 80000-9:2019 · ↗
    → Concentration / molality / amount-of-substance conventions
  6. Tiesinga E, Mohr PJ, Newell DB, Taylor BN (2021). CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018. Rev. Mod. Phys. 93(2):025010 · DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025010
    → Avogadro, gas constant, molar volume (2019 SI revision)
  7. IUPAC (2019). Compendium of Chemical Terminology — the IUPAC Gold Book (online). IUPAC · DOI: 10.1351/goldbook
    → Definitions of mass fraction, molality, normality, ppm, activity
  8. Mills IM, Cvitaš T, Homann K, Kallay N, Kuchitsu K (1988). Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry. Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1st ed. · ISBN: 0-632-01773-5
    → Historical predecessor of IUPAC Green Book
🛡️ Safety — CAS 74-85-1MolGod_SAFEHUB_MAIN
Data limitations notice. The safety information on this page is for reference only and does not replace a full safety data sheet (SDS). Before using the product, consult the manufacturer's current safety data sheet and the GHS/CLP guidance. The CLP classification applies to the pure bulk substance, not to commercial formulations.

GHS/CLP classification — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 + UN GHS Rev. 9 (2021).

⚠️ Danger
GHS02 — Flammable
GHS02 Flammable
GHS04 — Gases under pressure
GHS04 Gases under pressure
GHS07 — Irritant / harmful
GHS07 Irritant / harmful

🚨 Hazard statements (H)

  • H220 — Extremely flammable gas
  • H336 — May cause drowsiness or dizziness

🛡 Precautionary statements (P)

  • P261 — Avoid breathing dust/fume/gas/mist/vapours/spray
  • P271 — Use only outdoors or in a well-ventilated area
  • P304+P340 — IF INHALED: Remove person to fresh air and keep comfortable for breathing
  • P312 — Call a POISON CENTER or doctor/physician if you feel unwell
  • P403+P233 — Store in a well-ventilated place: Keep container tightly closed
  • P405 — Store locked up
  • P501 — Dispose of contents/container to an approved waste collection point

✓ Harmonised classification pursuant to Annex VI of the CLP Regulation (EC) 1272/2008 (official, binding classification). Index number: 601-010-00-3.

Reference (Chicago): European Chemicals Agency. "ethylene, Index No. 601-010-00-3." In Table 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation), 23rd Adaptation to Technical Progress (harmonised list as of 2026-07-07). Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency, 2026. https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/annex-vi-to-clp.

⚠ IARC — Group 3: not classifiable as to carcinogenicity to humans (evaluated by IARC). (Independent assessment of carcinogenicity evidence by IARC/WHO — supplements the CLP classification above.)
Reference (Chicago): IARC. n.d. IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans: CAS 74-85-1. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications/.
Classification from the local MOL-GOD list (snapshot) — unverified against the current IARC list. Verify

Translations: CLP Regulation (EC) 1272/2008, Annexes III and IV. Data: PubChem/NLM.

📚 Consolidated scientific references — Chicago Author-Date 10 sources

References collected from all Safety Hub tabs. CAS: 74-85-1 · PubChem ↗

  1. Parlament Europejski i Rada UE. 2008. "Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1272/2008 w sprawie klasyfikacji, oznakowania i pakowania substancji (CLP)." Dz.Urz. UE L 353. [↗] GHS, Regulations
  2. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2021. "Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), Ninth Revised Edition." United Nations, Geneva. [↗] GHS
  3. Goldfrank, Lewis R., Robert S. Hoffman, Mary Ann Howland, et al.. 2019. "Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies, 11th ed.." McGraw-Hill Education, New York. ISBN 978-1-25-985961-8. Pierwsza pomoc, Toksykologia
  4. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2023. "NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (DHHS Publ. 2005-149)." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services / CDC, Cincinnati, OH. [↗] Pierwsza pomoc, PPE, Toksykologia
  5. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2016. "EN 374-1:2016 — Protective gloves against dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms." CEN, Brussels. [↗] PPE
  6. UNECE. 2023. "European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR 2025)." United Nations, Geneva. [↗] Utylizacja, Regulacje
  7. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2022. "NFPA 400 — Hazardous Materials Code." NFPA, Quincy, MA. [↗] Magazynowanie
  8. Urben, P.G. (ed.). 2017. "Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards, 8th ed.." Butterworth-Heinemann / Elsevier, Oxford. [↗] Magazynowanie
  9. Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska RP. 2023. "Baza danych o produktach i opakowaniach oraz o gospodarce odpadami (BDO)." Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska, Warszawa. [↗] Utylizacja
  10. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC / WHO). 2024. "IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans — List of Classifications." WHO, Lyon. [↗] Toksykologia

Tabs with their own references (Emergency, PPE, Storage, Waste) contain additional bibliographic entries within their respective sections.

📈 Analytical statistics (t-test · RSD · Grubbs · Q-Dixon) ICH Q2

Paste a series of replicate measurements (CSV, or one number per line). The calculator computes the mean, standard deviation and 95% CI, and detects outliers (Grubbs + Dixon Q).

Separator: comma, space, tab, new line. Minimum 3 measurements.
📐 Statistical formulas
  • x̄ = Σxᵢ / n — arithmetic mean
  • s² = Σ(xᵢ - x̄)² / (n-1) — sample variance
  • s = √s² — standard deviation
  • RSD% = (s / x̄) × 100% — relative standard deviation
  • CI₉₅ = x̄ ± t(0.05, n-1) × s / √n — Student's t
  • G = |xᵢ - x̄| / s — Grubbs' test
  • Q = |xsuspect - xnearest| / |xmax - xmin| — Dixon Q-test

Source: ICH Q2(R2) Validation of Analytical Procedures · ICH PDF ↗

📊 HPLC method validation (ICH Q2(R1)) PARTIAL

3 of 3 critical metrics need experimental data

Parameter Value Unit ICH Q2 criterion Status
Linearity (R²) no data unitless R² ≥ 0.999 (≥0.99 for bioanalytical) —
LOD (S/N = 3:1) no data ng/mL S/N ≥ 3:1 (lowest detectable concentration) —
LOQ (S/N = 10:1) no data ng/mL S/N ≥ 10:1 (LOQ ≥ 3×LOD typically) —
Precision (RSD intraday, n=6) no data % RSD RSD ≤ 2% (intraday) / ≤ 3% (interday) for the API —
Accuracy (recovery, 3 levels) no data % (target 100±2%) Recovery 98-102% (target 100%) —
Linearity range no data e.g. 0.1-100 ng/mL Min. 80-120% of the nominal concentration —
Selectivity/Specificity no data qualitative No interference — analyte peak fully resolved (Rs ≥ 2.0) —
Robustness no data RSD < 2% at ±5% variation RSD < 2% under small parameter variations —
Legend: ✓ PASS ⚠ CAUTION ✗ FAIL — NO_DATA
📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) — click to expand

Analytical method validation standards — 4 independent sources (ICH + USP + AOAC + Snyder).

  1. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). 2005. Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology Q2(R1). ICH Expert Working Group. [link ↗] — Gold-standard ICH guideline — accepted by EMA, FDA, MHLW, NMPA
  2. United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Convention. 2024. USP General Chapter <621> Chromatography. USP-NF 2024 ed. USP. [link ↗]
  3. AOAC International. 2016. Appendix F: Guidelines for Standard Method Performance Requirements. AOAC INTERNATIONAL. [link ↗] — AOAC SMPR — alternative to ICH Q2 for food/dietary supplements
  4. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-16754-0. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 [link ↗] — Industry standard textbook — Chapter 11 covers method validation
  5. Snyder, L. R., J. J. Kirkland, and J. L. Glajch. 1997. Practical HPLC Method Development. 2nd ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-00703-6. — Classic method-development reference (DryLab heritage).
  6. Rozet, Eric, et al.. 2013. Analysis of recent pharmaceutical regulatory documents on analytical method validation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2007.03.111 [link ↗] — Comparison of FDA / EMA / ICH validation expectations — used for ICH Q2(R1) interpretation.
  7. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.10.052 [link ↗] — Plackett-Burman design for robustness — basis of ICH Q2 §3.7.
  8. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists. 2nd ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-31378-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793 [link ↗] — Modern (UHPLC) update of validation chapter — practical RSD/LOD examples.
  9. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. 5th ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-68218-0. — European pharmacopeial perspective — complements USP/AOAC.
  10. Kazakevich, Yuri V., and Rosario LoBrutto, eds.. 2007. HPLC for Pharmaceutical Scientists. Wiley-Interscience. ISBN 978-0-471-68162-4. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470087954 [link ↗] — Pharma-focused validation case studies (specificity, robustness).
  11. European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2011. Guideline on bioanalytical method validation EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009. EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. [link ↗] — EMA bioanalytical companion to ICH Q2(R1) for clinical samples.

· ⚠ SVHC/REACH regulatory warnings ↑

🔧 HPLC troubleshooting — decision tree 6 common problems

Diagnostics for the 6 most common HPLC problems with a decision tree (5 steps per problem). Source: Snyder/Kirkland/Dolan 3rd ed. Chapter 17 + LCGC LC Troubleshooting columns 1989-2024.

Broad peaks medium

Symptom: All peaks on the chromatogram are wider than expected (FWHM > 2× normal)

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Check whether all peaks are broadened or only some
    → YES: All → instrumental problem (column or system)
    → NO: Only some → chemistry problem (interaction with the column for specific analytes)
  2. 2. Swap in a test column — does the problem disappear?
    → YES: COLUMN worn out — packing damaged, void in the first few mm. Replace it.
    → NO: Problem in the LC system
  3. 3. Check the dead volume — injection loop, connections, detector
    → YES: Loop > 100 µL for a 4.6 mm column or loose connections → replace ferrules, shorten tubing
    → NO: Continue diagnostics
  4. 4. Temperature test: raise the column from 25°C to 40°C
    → YES: Narrower peaks → mass-transfer kinetics too slow (increase T)
    → NO: Continue
  5. 5. Check flow rate vs the optimal van Deemter value for this column
    → YES: Optimum for 4.6mm/5µm = 1.0 mL/min, for 2.1mm/3µm = 0.4 mL/min
    → NO: Continue
⚠️ Common causes:
  • Column worn out (>2000 injections without a guard)
  • System dead volume > 100 µL (wrong loop, long tubing, loose ferrules)
  • Temperature too low (mass-transfer kinetics)
  • Flow rate outside the van Deemter optimum
  • Sample solvent stronger than mobile phase A
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ Replace the column (when >2000 injections)
  • ✓ Check all connections — keep tubing as short as possible
  • ✓ Increase column T to 40°C (if the substance is stable)
  • ✓ Reduce flow to the van Deemter optimum
  • ✓ Dissolve the sample in mobile phase A (not in pure organic)
Peak tailing (T > 1.5) high

Symptom: Peaks have an extended "tail" on the late-elution side (asymmetry T = b/a > 1.5 per USP)

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Does the substance contain basic groups (amino, pyridine)?
    → YES: Yes → silanol interactions! Add 0.1% TFA or 5-10 mM TEA to mobile phase A.
    → NO: Continue
  2. 2. Check the mobile-phase pH vs the substance pKa
    → YES: pH = pKa ± 1 → partial ionization, peak split. Move pH ≥ 2 units away from pKa.
    → NO: Continue
  3. 3. Check the column age (>1500 injections?)
    → YES: Yes → exposed silanols (column bleed). Replace with a column with higher endcapping (XTerra, Symmetry).
    → NO: Continue
  4. 4. Does the sample contain metals (Fe, Cu from glass vials)?
    → YES: Yes → use type II clear vials or PFA. Add 0.1mM EDTA to the sample.
    → NO: Continue
⚠️ Common causes:
  • Silanol interactions (basic analyte + silica gel free silanols)
  • pH at the boundary of the analyte pKa (peak split)
  • Old column (column bleed, high silanol activity)
  • Metals in the sample (chelation → tailing)
  • Column overload (>50 µg on a 4.6mm column)
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ Add 0.1% TFA (UV) or 0.1% formic acid (LC-MS) to mobile phase A
  • ✓ Choose a column with high-purity endcapping: Waters XBridge BEH, Phenomenex Kinetex
  • ✓ Work at pH ≥ 2 units away from pKa
  • ✓ Add 0.1mM EDTA to the sample (Fe/Cu chelation)
  • ✓ Reduce the injection volume to ≤ 20 µL for a 4.6mm column
Baseline drift medium

Symptom: The baseline rises or falls systematically for >5 minutes

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Are you running a gradient (B% increasing)?
    → YES: Yes → different absorption of phases A vs B at dλ. Solvent change in UV cutoff. Check the % organic UV absorbance.
    → NO: Continue (isocratic)
  2. 2. Check the column temperature — is it stable to ±0.5°C?
    → YES: Yes (stable) → continue
    → NO: Unstable → turn on the column thermostat (>25°C controlled)
  3. 3. Test: turn off the autosampler, run pump+column+detector alone
    → YES: Drift disappears → autosampler contamination (clean the needle, septum)
    → NO: Continue
  4. 4. Check the lamp age (D2 for UV)
    → YES: Yes (>1500 hours) → replace the lamp
    → NO: Continue
⚠️ Common causes:
  • Gradient elution with different UV cutoff of the phases
  • Unstable column T
  • Autosampler contamination of the needle/septum
  • Old UV lamp (>1500h)
  • Detector flow cell fouled
  • Column not equilibrated (<10 column volumes)
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ Pre-equilibrate the column for 10-15 column volumes at 100% A
  • ✓ Column thermostat on, T 30-40°C stable
  • ✓ Clean the detector flow cell with 50:50 ACN:H2O
  • ✓ Replace the D2 lamp if >1500h
  • ✓ Use baseline subtraction (Chromeleon, Empower native function)
No peak / lost peak critical

Symptom: The expected analyte peak does not appear on the chromatogram

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Did the injection actually take place?
    → YES: Check the autosampler log, pump pressure (should drop during injection)
    → NO: Autosampler problem → check the loop, needle, sample in the vial
  2. 2. Is the sample in the vial (correct volume, not evaporated)?
    → YES: Continue
    → NO: No sample — re-pipette
  3. 3. Sample stability — prepared >24h ago?
    → YES: Yes → degradation. Re-prepare a fresh sample.
    → NO: Continue
  4. 4. Check the detection wavelength vs the substance λmax
    → YES: Detection at λ does NOT match λmax → no signal. Scan DAD 200-400nm.
    → NO: Continue
  5. 5. Test: inject a pure standard (of known concentration, fresh)
    → YES: The standard gives a peak → problem with the sample (matrix, derivatization)
    → NO: No peak even with the standard → system problem (column, phase, gradient)
⚠️ Common causes:
  • Sample not drawn from the vial (autosampler bug)
  • Sample degraded (>24h pH/temp/light)
  • Detection at the wrong wavelength
  • Wrong mobile phase (e.g. forgotten TFA)
  • Column reversed / wrong stationary phase
  • Substance elutes at the front (V0) → unretained, not visible
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ Re-prepare a fresh sample per the exact protocol
  • ✓ UV-Vis DAD scan 200-400nm + search for λmax
  • ✓ Check the mobile-phase composition — was TFA added?
  • ✓ Test the reverse column direction (carefully!)
  • ✓ For retention <1 min — lower the % B, MeOH instead of ACN
  • ✓ Check the expected retention time in the plugin method database
Pressure too high critical

Symptom: Pump pressure > 80% of the column max or system shutdown with a high-pressure error

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Check that the column is connected correctly (arrow direction)
    → YES: OK
    → NO: Column reversed → flip it (never run it "backwards")
  2. 2. Test: remove the column from the system, run pump+detector alone
    → YES: Pressure drops to <50 bar → problem in the column (clogged)
    → NO: Pressure stays high → in-line filter clogged, frit fouled
  3. 3. Check the pre-column filter (in-line frit)
    → YES: Fouled and brown → replace it
    → NO: Continue
  4. 4. Back-flush the column with 50:50 ACN:H2O without the column — does it disappear?
    → YES: Particles stuck in the first mm — a 30 min flush may recover it
    → NO: Replace the column
⚠️ Common causes:
  • In-line filter (frit) clogged with particles
  • Buffer salting out (precipitation at high %B)
  • Sample contains suspended matter (filter 0.22 µm before injection)
  • Column clogged (column bed compaction)
  • Gradient with a buffer phase + high organic → salt precipitation
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ ALWAYS filter the sample through 0.22 µm PVDF before injection
  • ✓ Replace the in-line filter every 100 injections (or when pressure rises >20%)
  • ✓ Do NOT use >20mM phosphate buffer + >70% ACN (the salt precipitates)
  • ✓ Flush the column for 30 min with 50:50 ACN:H2O in the reverse direction (when the manufacturer allows it)
  • ✓ Pre-column 4×3mm to protect the main column
Ghost peaks high

Symptom: Unexplained peaks on the chromatogram absent from the calibration

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Test: blank injection (pure sample solvent)
    → YES: A ghost appears → contamination of the system or eluents
    → NO: Appears only with the sample → matrix
  2. 2. Does the ghost grow with the gradient (elutes at high %B)?
    → YES: Yes → overloaded column or strong-retained from a previous run
    → NO: Independent of the gradient → autosampler carryover
  3. 3. Increase carryover wash (between injections)
    → YES: Helps → carryover was to blame. Use a stronger wash protocol.
    → NO: Continue
  4. 4. Pure water injection — is there a peak?
    → YES: Yes → contamination of the water source (organics from the DI system)
    → NO: Continue
⚠️ Common causes:
  • Carryover in the autosampler needle/loop
  • Eluent contamination (even HPLC-grade)
  • Strong-retained components from previous runs
  • Plastic in the vials (phthalates, PEG from the caps)
  • Insufficiently purified DI water
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ Strengthen the wash protocol: 100% B → 100% A → 50:50 (3 cycles)
  • ✓ Strong wash: 100% DMSO or 100% MeOH before calibration
  • ✓ Filter the eluents through 0.22 µm PTFE if in doubt
  • ✓ Use amber glass + Teflon-lined caps for samples
  • ✓ Periodic gradient ramp to 100% B for 10 min (clean-out)
📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) — click to expand
  1. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 17 (Troubleshooting) pp. 559-616. ISBN 978-0-470-16754-0. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 [link ↗]
  2. Dolan, John W.. 2014. LC Troubleshooting (monthly column 1989-2024). LCGC North America. [link ↗] — John Dolan 35-letnia seria miesięcznych artykułów problemowych
  3. Kromidas, Stavros. 2017. HPLC Made to Measure: A Practical Handbook for Optimization. 2nd ed. Wiley-VCH. ISBN 978-3-527-31377-1. — Praktyczny przewodnik problem-solving dla labs analitycznych
  4. Dolan, John W.. 2013. When to Modify Method Conditions. 192-199. [link ↗] — Decision flow for changing flow rate / temperature / %B vs swapping columns.
  5. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists. 2nd ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-31378-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793 [link ↗] — Chapter 9 covers troubleshooting modern UHPLC systems (sub-2 µm particles).
  6. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. 5th ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-68218-0. — Solid step-by-step problem isolation chapter (eluents, columns, instruments).
  7. Snyder, L. R., J. J. Kirkland, and J. L. Glajch. 1997. Practical HPLC Method Development. 2nd ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-00703-6. — Method-development companion volume with troubleshooting cross-refs.
  8. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. The new physical chemistry of HPLC. 1764-1772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094 [link ↗] — Theoretical basis for diagnosing efficiency losses (mass-transfer, eddy diffusion).
  9. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods. 2120-2129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.10.052 [link ↗] — How to diagnose method failures vs. system failures (Plackett-Burman).
  10. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. 100 Years of Chromatography. 2nd ed. Wiley-VCH. ISBN 978-3-527-33473-5. — Historical context for ghost-peak phenomenology (silica chemistry).
🧮 Laboratory calculators (8) MolGod_LABCALC_1
Dilution (C₁V₁=C₂V₂)
Molarity (M=n/V)
pH Buffer (Henderson-Hasselbalch)
Beer-Lambert (A=εcl)
Mass → Moles
Concentration % → M
ppm → mg/L
Temperature C↔F↔K

Verified formulas: IUPAC Gold Book ↗, DOI ↗

📊 Spectroscopic Databases MolGod_SPECDB_3
🏷️ Label generator (QR) MolGod_LABEL_1
Ethylene• ETHYLENE / Ethene• CAS: 74-85-1• Formula: C2H4• Mass: 28.05 g/molDANGERGHS HAZARD STATEMENTS:H220: Extremely flammable gasH336: May cause drowsiness or dizzinessP304+P340 P312 P501 P403+P233 P405 P261 P271FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY!DH ScientificScience first. Commerce as consequence.Batch No.: Netto Mass: MFG:
Historical Incidents (CSB/EPA/Bretherick)

This database contains only serious industrial and laboratory incidents (CSB, EPA RMP, Bretherick). The absence of a record does NOT mean the substance is safe — the database is incomplete.

Historical Incidents (1)

  1. 1989-10-23 Pasadena, Texas, USA (Phillips 66 Houston Chemical Complex, HCC) Catastrophic explosion
    Substances: Ethylene (high-pressure HDPE feed) (CAS 74-85-1) + Oxygen / atmospheric air ingress (CAS 7782-44-7)
    23 fatalities 314 injured

    Podczas konserwacji reaktora HDPE settling leg (rurociag 22") doszlo do otwarcia zaworu DEMCO w trakcie procedury maintenance. Uwolnienie ~38 ton mieszaniny etylen/izobutan/wodor stworzylo chmure gazowo-powietrzna, ktora zaplonila po ~90 sekundach (zrodlo nieustalone definitywnie). VCE o sile 2.4 ton TNT, zniszczyl HDPE complex.

    Root cause: Single-block valve zamiast double-block-and-bleed. Procedury LO/TO niewlasciwe (compressed air zasilajacy aktuatory zaworow podlaczony do "open" zamiast "close" portow). Brak gas detection w okolicy reactora. Unauthorized work przy non-routine maintenance.
    Lessons learned: Double-block-and-bleed valve standard dla high-pressure reactor isolation. Kierunek pneumatic actuators musi byc fail-safe. OSHA PSM standard 29 CFR 1910.119 (1992) jest bezposrednim wynikiem tego incydentu.
    Primary source: OSHA + Phillips 66 + peer-reviewed Process Safety literature
    Bibliography (Chicago author-date)
    • U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 1990. The Phillips 66 Company Houston Chemical Complex Explosion and Fire. Washington, DC: OSHA.
    • Atherton, John, and Frederic Gil. 2008. Incidents That Define Process Safety. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-AIChE.
    • Khan, Faisal I., and S. A. Abbasi. 1999. "Major Accidents in Process Industries and an Analysis of Causes and Consequences." Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (5): 361-378.
📚 Incident data sources
  1. KIJENSKI, JACEK, SKUPINSKI, WINCENTY. 2005. "Syndiotactic polystyrene, styrene/ethylene copolymers and their blends with another polymers." Polimery 50 (02): 89-99. https://doi.org/10.14314/polimery.2005.089. [DOI]
  2. MAJCHRZAK, ZDZISLAWA. 2002. "Synthesis of propylene/ethylene copolymers and their characteristics." Polimery 47 (11/12): 808-812. https://doi.org/10.14314/polimery.2002.808. [DOI]
  3. SUDOL, MAREK, CZAJA, KRYSTYNA, BIALEK, MARZENA. 2000. "FT-IR spectrophotometric determination of the composition of ethylene-1-hexene copolymers." Polimery 45 (06): 405-410. https://doi.org/10.14314/polimery.2000.405. [DOI]
  4. Anonymous. "All-Plastic Supercapacitors from Poly(ethylene terephthalate) Waste.". https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5c03370.s001. [DOI]
  5. U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). 2024. "CSB Incident Investigation Reports." Washington, DC: CSB. 🔗
  6. U.S. EPA / NOAA. 2024. "CAMEO Chemicals Database." Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 🔗
  7. BARPI (French Bureau for Analysis of Industrial Risks and Pollutions). 2024. "ARIA Database of Industrial Accident Reports." Saint-Denis: BARPI/DGPR. 🔗
  8. U.S. OSHA. 2024. "OSHA Accident Investigation Reports." Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 🔗
  9. Urben, Peter G., ed. 2017. Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards. 8th ed. Oxford: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-08-100971-2.
  10. Mannan, Sam, ed. 2005. Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 3rd ed. Oxford: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-7506-7555-0.
📚 Scientific literature overview — CAS 74-85-1MolGod_LITHUB_MAIN
⭐ Key findings (scientific literature) 10 publications
🏆 CAS 74-85-1 — multi-criteria ranking (W12): 30% citations · 20% recency · 20% topic · 15% historical · 15% open access.
  1. #1
    Kruse S, Türkowsky D, Birkigt J et al. (2021) · The ISME journal
    Why it matters: Open access
    SCORE 10.79 Mechanism Citations: 55 Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  2. #2
    et al. (2023) · Angewandte Chemie International Edition
    Why it matters: Recent (2023) · open access
    SCORE 10.61 Mechanism Citations: 8 Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  3. #3
    H. L. T. Hong, Thinh Le Nguyen Huu, Tho Duong Anh et al. (2022) · Journal of coordination chemistry
    Why it matters: Open access
    SCORE 10.58 Mechanism Citations: 5 Open Access DOI ↗
  4. #4
    Alice Badin, Mette Martina Broholm, Carsten Suhr Jacobsen et al. (2016) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology
    Why it matters: Open access
    SCORE 9.25 Mechanism Citations: 53 Open Access DOI ↗
  5. #5
    Matthias Vandichel, David Lesthaeghe, Jeroen Van der Mynsbrugge et al. (2010) · Journal of Catalysis
    Why it matters: Open access
    SCORE 9.05 Mechanism Citations: 99 Open Access DOI ↗
  6. #6
    Bas Venderbosch, Jean‐Pierre H. Oudsen, Lukas A. Wolzak et al. (2018) · ACS Catalysis
    Why it matters: Open access
    SCORE 9.04 Analytics Citations: 28 Open Access DOI ↗
  7. #7
    Tilen Lindič; Jasmin Ahmad; Beate Paulus (2026) · ChemPhysChem
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 8.75 Mechanism Citations: 1 Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  8. #8
    Massimo Marchesi, Ramón Aravena, Kanwartej S. Sra et al. (2012) · The Science of The Total Environment
    Why it matters: Open access
    SCORE 7.99 Mechanism Citations: 27 Open Access DOI ↗
  9. #9
    Jonelle Harvey, András Bödi, Richard P. Tuckett et al. (2012) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
    Why it matters: Open access
    SCORE 7.87 Mechanism Citations: 46 Open Access DOI ↗
  10. #10
    et al. (2025) · Organic Letters
    Why it matters: Recent (2025)
    SCORE 7.13 Mechanism Citations: 5 DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
📈 HPLC gradient — optimizer (LSS) TEMPLATE

Gradient based on PubChem XLogP3 + LSS (Snyder et al. 2010, ch. 9).

  • Column: C18
  • Buffer: phosphate
  • Flow: 1 mL/min
  • logP: 1.2 (PubChem XLogP3)
  • Ramp: 15% → 95% B, 15 min
  • Total analysis time: 28 min
t (min) %A %B flow (mL/min) Comment
0 85 15 1 start (equilibrium)
2 85 15 1 end of initial hold
17 5 95 1 end of LSS ramp
22 5 95 1 column wash
23 85 15 1 return to init
28 85 15 1 re-equilibration
📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date)
  1. Snyder, Lloyd R., John W. Dolan, and Joseph J. Kirkland. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. Wiley. — Chapter 9 — gradient elution, LSS theory (cited as Snyder et al. 2010 in tool description).
  2. Schoenmakers, Peter J. 1986. Optimization of Chromatographic Selectivity: A Guide to Method Development. Elsevier. — Numerical optimization of gradient programs.
  3. Snyder, L. R., and J. W. Dolan. 2007. High-Performance Gradient Elution: The Practical Application of the Linear-Solvent-Strength Model. Wiley. — Foundational LSS reference for the %B_init = 5 + 8·logP heuristic implemented here.
  4. Nikitas, Pavlos, and Adrian Pappa-Louisi. 2009. "Retention models for isocratic and gradient elution in reversed-phase liquid chromatography." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1737-1755. [DOI ↗] — Modern review of gradient retention models — basis for non-LSS extensions.
  5. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1764-1772. [DOI ↗]
  6. Dong, Michael W. 2019. HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793. — Modern UHPLC gradient programming, sub-2 µm scaling rules.
  7. Wu, Naijun, and Anton M. Clausen. 2007. "Fundamental and practical aspects of ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography for fast separations." Journal of Separation Science 30: 1167-1182. [DOI ↗]
  8. Stoll, Dwight R., and Peter W. Carr. 2017. "Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography: A State of the Art Tutorial." Analytical Chemistry 89: 519-531. [DOI ↗] — Reference for orthogonal gradient design (2D-LC second dimension).
  9. Dolan, John W.. 2013. "When to Modify Method Conditions." LCGC North America 31: 192-199.
  10. Meyer, Veronika R. 2010. Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Wiley. — Chapter 7 — practical gradient design with isokratyczny scouting.

REST: /wp-json/molgod/v1/hplc/gradient/74-85-1

📐 HPLC peak symmetry calculator (USP Tf / As)

Calculate the USP tailing factor (Tf) and asymmetry (As) from the peak half-widths. Enter a (left half-width) and b (right half-width) measured at 5% or 10% of peak height.

📚 References (Chicago Author-Date)
  1. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography." United States Pharmacopeial Convention. [link ↗] — Defines USP Tailing Factor T = (a+b)/(2a) measured at 5% peak height.
  2. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2023. "Validation of Analytical Procedures Q2(R2)." ICH Expert Working Group. [link ↗] — Tailing factor is a system suitability parameter (Section 6).
  3. Foley, Joe P., and John G. Dorsey. 1983. "Equations for calculation of chromatographic figures of merit for ideal and skewed peaks." Analytical Chemistry 55: 730-737 https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00255a033 [link ↗] — Original asymmetry factor As = b/a at 10% height (Foley & Dorsey 1983).
  4. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 [link ↗] — Chapter 2.4 — peak shape diagnostics and remedies.
  5. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "Peak tailing and resolution." LCGC North America 21: 610-614 [link ↗] — How tailing factor degrades effective resolution.
  6. Vivó-Truyols, Gabriel, and Hans-Gerd Janssen. 2010. "Probabilistic approach to peak deconvolution in chromatography." Analytical Chemistry 82: 8525-8531 https://doi.org/10.1021/ac101742z [link ↗] — Modern numerical deconvolution for asymmetric peaks.
  7. Kromidas, Stavros. 2017. "HPLC Made to Measure: A Practical Handbook for Optimization." Wiley-VCH. — Practical Tf and As thresholds for routine QC.
  8. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. "HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists." Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793 [link ↗]
  9. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. "Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography." Wiley.
  10. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. "Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods." Journal of Chromatography B 877: 2120-2129 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.10.052 [link ↗]
📊 Resolution and plate count calculator (Rs, N, H)

Calculate the resolution Rs, the number of theoretical plates N and HETP (H) for a pair of HPLC peaks. Enter the retention times, peak widths (at 50% or at the base) and the column length.

📚 References (Chicago Author-Date)
  1. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-16754-0. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 [link ↗] — Chapter 2 covers resolution, plate count and HETP fundamentals (Snyder et al. 2010).
  2. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography." USP-NF 2024 ed. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. [link ↗] — Defines Rs >= 1.5 acceptance criterion and N calculation methods.
  3. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "How much resolution is enough?." LCGC North America 21: 350-353 [link ↗] — Practical guidance on Rs targets for routine method development.
  4. Van Deemter, J. J., F. J. Zuiderweg, and A. Klinkenberg. 1956. "Longitudinal diffusion and resistance to mass transfer as causes of nonideality in chromatography." Chemical Engineering Science 5: 271-289 https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(56)80003-1 [link ↗] — Origin of N = 5.54·(tr/w0.5)² half-height plate count formulation.
  5. Giddings, J. Calvin. 1965. "Dynamics of Chromatography, Part I: Principles and Theory." Marcel Dekker. ISBN 978-0-8247-1357-7. — Resolution equation Rs = (1/4)·√N·(α-1)/α·k/(1+k) (master equation).
  6. Foley, Joe P., and John G. Dorsey. 1983. "Equations for calculation of chromatographic figures of merit for ideal and skewed peaks." Analytical Chemistry 55: 730-737 https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00255a033 [link ↗] — Skewed-peak corrections to apparent N.
  7. Knox, John H.. 1977. "Practical aspects of LC theory." Journal of Chromatographic Science 15: 352-364 https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/15.9.352 [link ↗]
  8. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1764-1772 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094 [link ↗]
  9. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. "HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists." 2nd ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-31378-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793 [link ↗]
  10. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. "Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography." 5th ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-68218-0.
🧪 System Suitability — live calculator (USP <621>)

Enter data from 5–6 injections (areas, tR, tailing, plates) — the calculator computes %RSD and means and checks compliance with USP <621>. You can paste CSV (comma-separated) or edit individual values.

📚 References (Chicago Author-Date)
  1. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography (System Suitability section)." USP-NF 2024 ed. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. [link ↗] — Defines RSD area < 2%, tailing < 2.0, N > 2000 acceptance criteria.
  2. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2023. "Validation of Analytical Procedures Q2(R2)." ICH Expert Working Group. [link ↗] — Section 5.4 — system suitability is part of method validation.
  3. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2018. "Reviewer Guidance: Validation of Chromatographic Methods." US Food and Drug Administration. [link ↗] — CDER reviewer perspective on chromatographic validation expectations.
  4. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." 3rd ed. Wiley. — Chapter 2 — system suitability fundamentals (RSD, Tf, N).
  5. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. "Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods." — Robustness vs. system suitability — design-of-experiments framework.
  6. Rozet, Eric, et al.. 2013. "Analysis of recent pharmaceutical regulatory documents on analytical method validation."
  7. European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2011. "Guideline on bioanalytical method validation EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009." EMA. [link ↗] — EMA companion guideline with bioanalytical SS criteria.
  8. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. "HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists." 2nd ed. Wiley. — UHPLC-specific suitability adjustments (n=5 vs. n=6).
  9. Kazakevich, Yuri V., and Rosario LoBrutto, eds.. 2007. "HPLC for Pharmaceutical Scientists." Wiley-Interscience.
  10. AOAC International. 2016. "Appendix F: Guidelines for Standard Method Performance Requirements." AOAC INTERNATIONAL. [link ↗] — Alternative SS thresholds for food/dietary samples.
📤 Embed this molecule on your site

Have a blog, forum or scientific service? Embed the interactive 3D molecule on your website — every reader will see it, with a link below to our shop where they can buy the reagent.

🔗 HTML iframe code (easiest — works everywhere)

Copy and paste into your site's HTML editor:

Adjust width and height to your layout.

⚙ WordPress Shortcode (for other shops with MOL-GOD)

🌐 Direct link (for emails, chats, LinkedIn, Twitter)

LinkedIn Twitter/X Facebook
QR code CAS 74-85-1

📱 QR code (for printing on flyers / labels / catalogs)

Place it in a product catalog, on a bottle label or a flyer. The customer scans it — sees the 3D molecule on their phone, with a link to your shop.

⬇ Download PNG

🖼 Open Graph image (for social media meta tags)

When you share the link, Facebook/LinkedIn/Discord will automatically fetch the image preview:

Preview
📋 License: The embed keeps a backlink to DH Scientific (required — the shop is the data source). Chemical data comes from PubChem (CC0 — public domain). The embed is FREE for educational, commercial and hobby use.
📚 REFERENCES (Aggregate bibliography, Chicago Author-Date) 128 items

All scientific sources cited in the accordions above for CAS 74-85-1. Format: Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed., Author-Date system.

🗄️ Scientific databases

  1. NIST. n.d. NIST Chemistry WebBook: CAS 74-85-1. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=74-85-1.
  2. AIST. n.d. Spectral Database for Organic Compounds (SDBS): CAS 74-85-1. Tsukuba, Japan: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology. https://sdbs.db.aist.go.jp/.
  3. Linstrom, Peter J., and William G. Mallard, eds. n.d. NIST Chemistry WebBook: NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.18434/T4D303.
  4. PubChem. n.d. PubChem Compound Summary: CAS 74-85-1. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/#query=74-85-1.
  5. U.S. EPA. n.d. CompTox Chemicals Dashboard: CAS 74-85-1. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical/details/DTXSID1026378.

📐 Standards / Guidelines

  1. ICH. 2003. "Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products: Q1A(R2)." Geneva: International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q1A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  2. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2024. "NFPA 30: Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code." NFPA, Quincy, MA. https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=30.
  3. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2023. "29 CFR 1910.106 — Flammable Liquids." U.S. Department of Labor, Federal Register. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.106.
  4. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). 2024. "Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) — Harmonised Classification and Labelling." ECHA, Helsinki / Official Journal of the European Union. https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/clp/clp-classification.
  5. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2016. "EN 374-1:2016 — Protective gloves against dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms — Part 1: Terminology and performance requirements for chemical risks." CEN, Brussels. https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=205:110:::::FSP_PROJECT,FSP_ORG_ID:38536,6080&cs=1B0DAA8B85DF42E4A2C70E5D71F0BFA32.
  6. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2001. "EN 166:2001 — Personal eye-protection — Specifications." CEN, Brussels. https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=CEN:110:0::::FSP_PROJECT:6541&cs=1F1A4E0A78C4DB6A28DBE2E8C29D89DCF.
  7. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2009. "EN 14605:2005+A1:2009 — Protective clothing against liquid chemicals — Performance requirements for clothing with liquid-tight (Type 3) or spray-tight (Type 4) connections." CEN, Brussels. https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=CEN:110:0::::FSP_PROJECT:21581&cs=1A04A2D3C7CC58E9E6CB58D55F7EBFB7E.
  8. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2017. "Recommendations for Chemical Protective Clothing: A Companion to the NIOSH Pocket Guide." U.S. Department of Health & Human Services / CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ncpc/default.html.
  9. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2011. "Personal Protective Equipment — General requirements." U.S. Department of Labor — 29 CFR 1910.132. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.132.

📖 Books

  1. Hansen, Charles M. 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook, 2nd ed.. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. https://www.routledge.com/Hansen-Solubility-Parameters-A-Users-Handbook/Hansen/p/book/9780849372483.
  2. Barton, Allan F. M. 1991. CRC Handbook of Solubility Parameters and Other Cohesion Parameters: 2nd ed.. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. https://www.routledge.com/CRC-Handbook-of-Solubility-Parameters-and-Other-Cohesion-Parameters/Barton/p/book/9780849301766.
  3. Connors, Kenneth A., Gordon L. Amidon, and Valentino J. Stella. 1986. Chemical Stability of Pharmaceuticals: A Handbook for Pharmacists, 2nd ed.. New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471734683.
  4. Rumble, John R., ed. 2019. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics: 100th Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. https://hbcp.chemnetbase.com/.
  5. Urben, Peter G. 2017. Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards, 8th Edition. Academic Press / Elsevier, Oxford. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780081010594.

📘 Monographs

  1. IARC. n.d. IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans: CAS 74-85-1. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications/.

📄 Scientific articles (peer-reviewed)

  1. Stefanis, Emmanuel, and Costas Panayiotou. 2008. "Prediction of Hansen Solubility Parameters with a New Group-Contribution Method." International Journal of Thermophysics 29: 568-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-008-0415-z.
  2. Stoll, Vincent S., and John S. Blanchard. 1990. "Buffers: Principles and Practice: In Methods in Enzymology, vol. 182." San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(90)82008-P.

🌐 Websites

  1. ECHA. 2023. "Guidance on the Application of the CLP Criteria." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/guidance-documents/guidance-on-clp.
  2. European Parliament. 2006. "Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH)." Official Journal of the European Union L 396: 1–849.
  3. ECHA. 2023. "Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern for Authorisation." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table.
  4. European Parliament. 2008. "Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP)." Official Journal of the European Union L 353: 1–1355.
  5. ECHA. 2017. "Guidance on the Compilation of Safety Data Sheets." Version 3.1. European Chemicals Agency. ECHA-17-G-01-EN. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23047722/sds_en.pdf.
  6. ECHA. 2022. "Restrictions Under REACH — Annex XVII." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/substances-restricted-under-reach.
  7. United Nations. 2021. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). 9th revised ed. ST/SG/AC.10/30/Rev.9. New York and Geneva: United Nations. https://unece.org/ghs-rev9-2021.
  8. ECHA. 2020. "Understanding REACH." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach.
  9. ECHA — Zalacznik VI do CLP (klasyfikacja zharmonizowana, ATP 23; 2026-07-07) https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/annex-vi-to-clp.
  10. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2024) — 29 CFR 1910.120 — Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) https://www.osha.gov/hazwoper.
  11. National Fire Protection Association (2018) — NFPA 472: Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-472.
  12. European Parliament and Council (2012) — Directive 2012/18/EU on the Control of Major-Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances (Seveso III) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32012L0018.
  13. U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2024) — NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
  14. European Chemicals Agency (2020) — Guidance on the Compilation of Safety Data Sheets (SDS), Version 3.1 https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23047722/sds_en.pdf.
  15. Snyder, Lloyd R., John W. Dolan, and Joseph J. Kirkland. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. Wiley.
  16. Schoenmakers, Peter J.. 1986. Optimization of Chromatographic Selectivity: A Guide to Method Development. Elsevier.
  17. Snyder, L. R., and J. W. Dolan. 2007. High-Performance Gradient Elution: The Practical Application of the Linear-Solvent-Strength Model. Wiley.
  18. Nikitas, Pavlos, and Adrian Pappa-Louisi. 2009. "Retention models for isocratic and gradient elution in reversed-phase liquid chromatography." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1737-1755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.10.005.
  19. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1764-1772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094.
  20. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793.
  21. Wu, Naijun, and Anton M. Clausen. 2007. "Fundamental and practical aspects of ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography for fast separations." Journal of Separation Science 30: 1167-1182. https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.200700026.
  22. Stoll, Dwight R., and Peter W. Carr. 2017. "Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography: A State of the Art Tutorial." Analytical Chemistry 89: 519-531. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03506.
  23. Dolan, John W.. 2013. "When to Modify Method Conditions." LCGC North America 31: 192-199. https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/when-modify-method-conditions.
  24. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Wiley.
  25. Van Deemter, J. J., F. J. Zuiderweg, and A. Klinkenberg. 1956. "Longitudinal diffusion and resistance to mass transfer as causes of nonideality in chromatography." https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(56)80003-1.
  26. Giddings, J. Calvin. 1965. "Dynamics of Chromatography, Part I: Principles and Theory." Marcel Dekker.
  27. Poppe, Hans. 1997. "Some reflections on speed and efficiency of modern chromatographic methods." https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(97)00376-2.
  28. Wu, Naijun, and Anton M. Clausen. 2007. "Fundamental and practical aspects of ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography for fast separations." https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.200700026.
  29. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094.
  30. Knox, John H.. 1977. "Practical aspects of LC theory." https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/15.9.352.
  31. Snyder, L. R., J. J. Kirkland, and J. L. Glajch. 1997. "Practical HPLC Method Development." Wiley.
  32. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. "100 Years of Chromatography." Wiley-VCH.
  33. Sadek, Paul C.. 2002. "The HPLC Solvent Guide." Wiley-Interscience.
  34. Snyder, L. R.. 1978. "Classification of the solvent properties of common liquids." https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/16.6.223.
  35. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2010. "Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry." Wiley-VCH.
  36. Vailaya, Anant, and Csaba Horváth. 1998. "Retention thermodynamics in hydrophobic interaction chromatography." https://doi.org/10.1021/ie980212h.
  37. Krstulović, Andrea M., and Phyllis R. Brown. 1981. "Reversed-phase High-Performance Liquid Chromatography." Wiley.
  38. Boysen, Reinhard I., and Milton T. W. Hearn. 2009. "Multi-modal HPLC of proteins." https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/47.8.645.
  39. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography." United States Pharmacopeial Convention. https://www.usp.org/harmonization-standards/pdg/general-chapters/chromatography.
  40. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2023. "Validation of Analytical Procedures Q2(R2)." ICH Expert Working Group. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/ICH_Q2-R2_Document_Step4_Guideline_2023_1101.pdf.
  41. Foley, Joe P., and John G. Dorsey. 1983. "Equations for calculation of chromatographic figures of merit for ideal and skewed peaks." https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00255a033.
  42. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183.
  43. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "Peak tailing and resolution." https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/peak-tailing-and-resolution.
  44. Vivó-Truyols, Gabriel, and Hans-Gerd Janssen. 2010. "Probabilistic approach to peak deconvolution in chromatography." https://doi.org/10.1021/ac101742z.
  45. Kromidas, Stavros. 2017. "HPLC Made to Measure: A Practical Handbook for Optimization." Wiley-VCH.
  46. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. "Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.10.052.
  47. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 2024. "USP <621> Chromatography." In United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary, USP 47-NF 42. Rockville, MD: USP. https://www.uspnf.com/.
  48. European Pharmacopoeia Commission. 2024. "2.2.46 Chromatographic Separation Techniques." In European Pharmacopoeia, 11th ed. Strasbourg: Council of Europe — EDQM. https://www.edqm.eu/en/european-pharmacopoeia-ph-eur-11th-edition.
  49. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2022. "ICH Q2(R2): Validation of Analytical Procedures." International Council for Harmonisation. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/ICH_Q2%28R2%29_Guideline_2022_1130.pdf.
  50. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 1996. "ICH Q3A: Impurities in New Drug Substances." International Council for Harmonisation. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q3A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  51. International Organization for Standardization. 2017. "ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories." Geneva: ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html.
  52. Kolthoff, Izaak Maurits, and Philip J. Elving, eds. 1978. Treatise on Analytical Chemistry, Part I: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
  53. Skoog, Douglas A., F. James Holler, and Stanley R. Crouch. 2018. Principles of Instrumental Analysis. 7th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  54. Christian, Gary D., Purnendu K. Dasgupta, and Kevin A. Schug. 2014. Analytical Chemistry. 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  55. EURACHEM/CITAC. 2012. "Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement." 3rd ed. EURACHEM/CITAC Guide CG 4. https://www.eurachem.org/images/stories/Guides/pdf/QUAM2012_P1.pdf.
  56. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183.
  57. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "How much resolution is enough?." https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/how-much-resolution-enough.
  58. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography (System Suitability section)." United States Pharmacopeial Convention. https://www.usp.org/harmonization-standards/pdg/general-chapters/chromatography.
  59. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2018. "Reviewer Guidance: Validation of Chromatographic Methods." US Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/74954/download.
  60. Rozet, Eric, et al.. 2013. "Analysis of recent pharmaceutical regulatory documents on analytical method validation." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2007.03.111.
  61. European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2011. "Guideline on bioanalytical method validation EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009." EMA. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-bioanalytical-method-validation_en.pdf.
  62. Kazakevich, Yuri V., and Rosario LoBrutto, eds.. 2007. "HPLC for Pharmaceutical Scientists." Wiley-Interscience. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470087954.
  63. AOAC International. 2016. "Appendix F: Guidelines for Standard Method Performance Requirements." AOAC INTERNATIONAL. https://www.aoac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/app_f.pdf.
  64. International Organization for Standardization. 1994. "ISO 5725-2:1994 Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results — Part 2: Basic Method for the Determination of Repeatability and Reproducibility of a Standard Measurement Method." Geneva: ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/11834.html.
  65. Heckert, N. A., and J. J. Filliben. 2003. "NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods." NIST Handbook 151. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.
  66. Grubbs, Frank E. 1950. "Sample Criteria for Testing Outlying Observations." Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21 (1): 27–58.
  67. Dixon, Wilfrid J. 1950. "Analysis of Extreme Values." Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21 (4): 488–506.
  68. Snedecor, George W., and William G. Cochran. 1989. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
  69. Student [William Sealy Gosset]. 1908. "The Probable Error of a Mean." Biometrika 6 (1): 1–25.
  70. International Organization for Standardization. 2005. "ISO 3534-1:2006 Statistics — Vocabulary and Symbols — Part 1: General Statistical Terms and Terms Used in Probability." Geneva: ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/40145.html.
  71. Thompson, Michael, Stephen L. R. Ellison, and Roger Wood. 2002. "Harmonized Guidelines for Single-Laboratory Validation of Methods of Analysis." Pure and Applied Chemistry 74 (5): 835–855.
  72. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2024. European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR), Applicable as from 1 January 2025 (ECE/TRANS/352). Geneva: UNECE. https://unece.org/transport/dangerous-goods/adr-2025-edition.
  73. International Air Transport Association. 2026. Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR). 67th ed. Montreal: IATA. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/cargo/dgr/.
  74. International Maritime Organization. 2024. International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, 2024 Edition (Amendment 42-24). London: IMO. https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/DangerousGoods-default.aspx.
  75. United Nations. 2025. Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations (Orange Book). 24th revised ed. ST/SG/AC.10/1/Rev.24. New York and Geneva: United Nations. https://unece.org/transport/dangerous-goods/un-model-regulations.
  76. International Civil Aviation Organization. 2025. Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284). 2025–2026 ed. Montreal: ICAO. https://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/Pages/technical-instructions.aspx.
  77. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). 2005. "Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology Q2(R1)." ICH Expert Working Group. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q2%28R1%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  78. United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Convention. 2024. "USP General Chapter <621> Chromatography." USP. https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/harmonization/gen-chapter/g05_pf_30_4_2004.pdf.
  79. European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2011. "Guideline on bioanalytical method validation EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009." EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-bioanalytical-method-validation_en.pdf.
  80. European Commission. 2014. "Commission Decision 2014/955/EU on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC." Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0955.
  81. Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. 2020. "Rozporządzenie Ministra Klimatu z dnia 2 stycznia 2020 r. w sprawie katalogu odpadów." Dziennik Ustaw RP 2020 poz. 10. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200000010.
  82. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska (GIOŚ). 2024. "Baza Danych O Odpadach (BDO) — System rejestracji firm utylizacyjnych." Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska. https://bdo.mos.gov.pl/.
  83. Polska — Sejm RP. 2012. "Ustawa z dnia 14 grudnia 2012 r. o odpadach." Dz.U. 2013 poz. 21 (z późn. zm.). https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20130000021.
  84. Furr, A. Keith, ed.. 2000. "CRC Handbook of Laboratory Safety." CRC Press.
  85. Pohanish, Richard P.. 2017. "Sittig's Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens." Elsevier.
  86. Lewis, Richard J.. 2012. "Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials." Wiley.
  87. NIOSH. 2024. "Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
  88. OSHA. 2024. "Occupational Chemical Database — Hazardous Waste Operations (HAZWOPER)." Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/chemicaldata.
  89. European Parliament and Council. 2008. "Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive)." Official Journal of the European Union L 312/3. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098.
  90. European Parliament and Council. 2009. "Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures." Official Journal of the European Union L 353. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008R1272.
  91. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2023. "European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR 2025)." UNECE. https://unece.org/transport/standards/transport/dangerous-goods/adr-2025.
  92. IPCS INCHEM. 2024. "International Programme on Chemical Safety — Waste Management Guidelines." WHO/UNEP/ILO. https://www.inchem.org/.
  93. European Parliament and Council. 2006. "Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on Shipments of Waste." Official Journal of the European Union L 190: 1–98. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006R1013.
  94. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2000. "Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guide for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients." ICH Expert Working Group. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q7%20Guideline.pdf.
  95. International Organization for Standardization. 2017. "ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories." ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html.
  96. World Health Organization. 2010. "WHO Good Manufacturing Practices for Pharmaceutical Products: Main Principles (WHO Technical Report Series No. 957, Annex 3)." WHO Press. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/trs957-annex3.
  97. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2003. "ICH Q1A(R2): Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products." International Council for Harmonisation. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q1A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  98. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2006. "ICH Q3A(R2): Impurities in New Drug Substances." ICH. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q3A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  99. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 1999. "ICH Q6A: Specifications for New Drug Substances and Products." ICH. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q6A%20Guideline.pdf.
  100. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2008. "ICH Q10: Pharmaceutical Quality System." ICH. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q10%20Guideline.pdf.
  101. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2024. "21 CFR Part 211: Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals." US Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-211.
  102. European Medicines Agency. 2014. "Guideline on Process Validation for Finished Products — Information and Data to Be Provided EMA/CHMP/CVMP/QWP/BWP/70278/2012." European Medicines Agency. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-process-validation-finished-products-information-data-be-provided-regulatory-submissions-revision-1_en.pdf.
  103. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 2024. "United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary, USP 47-NF 42." USP. https://www.uspnf.com/.
  104. European Pharmacopoeia Commission. 2024. "European Pharmacopoeia 11th Edition." Council of Europe — EDQM. https://www.edqm.eu/en/european-pharmacopoeia-ph-eur-11th-edition.
  105. Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S). 2021. "Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products PE 009-15." PIC/S Secretariat, Geneva. https://picscheme.org/en/publications.
  106. International Pharmaceutical Excipients Council (IPEC) and Pharmaceutical Quality Group (PQG). 2017. "Joint IPEC-PQG Good Manufacturing Practices Guide for Pharmaceutical Excipients." IPEC-Americas. https://ipecamericas.org/sites/default/files/IPECPQGGMPGuide2017.pdf.
📥 Download BibTeX📥 Download RISImport into Zotero/Mendeley/EndNote/Papers.

Opis

Etylen, CAS 74-85-1

Opinie

Na razie nie ma opinii o produkcie.

Napisz pierwszą opinię o „ethylene”

Podobne produkty

Inne produkty z tej kategorii